Can a German 88 Gun embark (limber) once it has disembarked.

[jaeger8888]

Was playing a scenario where several 88's started embarked. Dropped them of to take some shots but then couldn't get them embarked again. Anyway to get them loaded up and moving?

[Redwolf]

Nope.

..................

[jaeger8888]

That doesn't appear to be realistic. Will that change in the next release?

[Redwolf]

What next release?

[jaeger8888]

There's talk on some of the threads of a CM2. A complete overhaul of the system.

[Michael Emrys]

The basic game system has already been overhauled and continues to undergo refinement. Some time in the upcoming year it is expected that the first WW II title in the new system will be released. So far, all the projected titles will have European settings. Nothing has as yet been mentioned about games set in North Africa. If there are, they would still be years away.

Michael

[Redwolf]

In CMx2:Normandy you will be lucky if you can move the 88s at all at the beginning of the scenario.

No details have been posted so far about how towed guns work. Traverse versus rotation, towing, "hull-down", foxholes/trenches, all these details need to be sorted out between CMx2:modern and CMx2:ww2. Let's hope it goes well and doesn't leave us with crippled guns.

[John Kettler]

jaeger8888,

No, nor can you fire it from its wheels, as was done many times in North Africa. Bluntly put, the tactics you read about for handling 88s simply aren't doable in CMAK. If the gun's under tow, it can't fire. Once dropped from tow and fully deployed, it can't be moved again, so be sure you put something else on the exact planned location first and eyeball the LOS susing the LOS tool. Also, the only HE the gun has is impact fuzed, so no airburst capability, either. Thus, the 88 is crippled from the start and, thanks to Borg spotting and no modeling of smokeless/flashless propellants, wetdown, tarps, etc., not to mention fighting positions all but invisible in heat shimmer and tank targets that projected above it, is much easier spot and destroy than its real world counterpart.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Goose of CM]

As far I remember I have not had this problem.

I think I downloaded some form of upgrade from this website.

[John Kettler]

Goose of CM,

Welcome aboard! Which problem?

People,

My reply should've read "using" instead of how it actually wound up appearing.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

...and, thanks to Borg spotting and no modeling of smokeless/flashless propellants, wetdown, tarps, etc., not to mention fighting positions all but invisible in heat shimmer and tank targets that projected above it, is much easier spot and destroy than its real world counterpart.

You sure about all of that, John? All I've read and seen in photographs is emphatic that the 88 was a huge weapon almost impossible to conceal even when dug in. Oiling, tarps, etc. were indeed used to help reduce the dust cloud raised on firing, but more to make the fall of shot easier to spot than to hide the gun. And the heat shimmer would hide the targets as readily as the weapon (except possibly in the case of the M3 Grant). Interested to see your reply.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/misc_may43/index.html

First thing in Google Mr E. - say about 3 ft high by 6ft.

and then there is this

Erwin Rommel deployed and dug in his 88mm Flak guns in the U-shaped formation.They were dug in so deep, that the barrel looked only 30 to 60cm over the ground level.They were dug in, because they had no wheelsand stood very high on large pods and had a high profile. Then a low tent was erected over the position of every gun and evenwith field glasses it was impossible to distinguish them from sanddunes. Since the British saw a lot of sanddunes, they were not disturbed by them as well as that they didn't know of any German weapon with the profile as low as the small sanddunes. Then Rommel sent his light tanks to fake an attack on British positions. The British Crusaders saw an easy prey and followed Panzers to attacked, while Panzers withdraw in the U-shape. At point-blank range, sometimes requiringnerves of steel for the 88mm Flak gun crews, the trap sprang and they opened fire.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen1.htm

Page 20 of this book is relevant

88 mm FlaK 18/36/37/41 & PaK 43, 1936-45 By John Norris, Mike Fuller

[Redwolf]

Keep in mind there's a reason why they also made 88mm PaKs later.

And a high profile only means more digging as long as the barrel is pretty far up.

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

This says everything I said, only better. Note how close the gun is (~1 km) and the time it took to locate it. (Fair use) from here. http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/attactics/index.html Info is via debrief of what I believe is U.S. 1AD.

1. A BATTALION COMMANDER

German antitank gunnery in Tunisia made our reconnaissance a particularly tough job. The Germans dragged up their big 88-mm guns and dropped them in position behind their tanks. Usually a crew dug its gun in a hole 12 by 12 by 6 feet deep, virtually covering up the shield and exposing only the barrel of the gun. We found these guns especially hard to locate. (In fact, they can break up your whole show if you don't pick them up in time.) Apparently the Germans used mats to hide the muzzle blast. Once we hunted three days for a gun, which was within 1,000 yards of us, and then found it only by spotting the personnel approaching the gun position.

There's other discussion, then there's this:

Later the lieutenant; colonel was asked a question about the use of tanks in action. He said:

The Germans towed their 88's behind their tanks. (Maybe they brought up 75's, or both; I know they brought up 88's.) They towed them up and dug in. Their tanks came out and attracted our attention, and, until we caught on to their tricks, the tanks led us right between the guns, got behind us, and gave us the works. We learned not to form the habit of going for the first 88's which shot at us. There were likely to be several much closer up. The first 88 that barked and the first tank were generally bait, and we had to refrain from plunging at them. When they staged any night attack or late evening attack, and neither side pressed the fight, the Germans put their 88's in No-Man's-Land way ahead of where their tank positions were. In one instance their tanks were within 1,000 yards of a pass, but their guns were 4,000 yards ahead of the pass.

Four 88's, if dug in, are a match for any tank company. They are the most wonderful things to camouflage I have ever seen. They are very close to the ground. [2] You can watch the fire coming in; little dust swirls give the guns away and show how low they are. The projectiles just skim over the ground. The pit is 12 by 12 by 6. The gun looks like a pencil or black spot. The shield is level with the piece, and all you can really see is the tube. In Tunisia the crews, dressed in Arab clothes, did everything they could to camouflage positions. Our artillery found that it could get them out with high-explosive. When a tank gun could find them, it could get them out, too.

This is almost certainly part of a static German flak belt at Neuss, Germany, but I include it because it neatly depicts the point about how little of the dug-in 88 projects above the ground.

http://www.oldhickory30th.com/Neuss%20Germany%2088mm%20Gun%20Emplacement.jpg

Where the ground's too hard to dig in, a sangar is constructed of rocks or sandbags. Again, not much of the gun is visible.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tWfLTciqfso/SeW8qizxJBI/AAAAAAAAANM/I4qNqWFRPa4/s1600-h/IMG_0826.JPG

This photo series will be quite valuable to you, showing 88s under tow, 88s dug in and an 88 firing while still on its carriage. Couldn't fire broadside this way, as it would tip over, but it could cover the forward and rear zones.

http://www.afrikakorps.org/dreaded88.htm

As for German advantages via smokeless/flashless propellants, suggest you see what U.S. combat veterans had to say about this during the war, not to mention advantages in gunnery optics.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=12771&highlight=german+weapons%2C+report+for+eisenhower

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Okay, I concede the point. I have to say that this contradicts what I have encountered elsewhere, including photos of dug in 88s. Apparently those were not as representative as I thought. As noted in all the above, the gun pit had to be dug unusually deeply because the gun sat so high on its pedestal. This is true of any large AA gun as it has to have room to recoil when firing at high elevations.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

The gun sits on a high pedestal so that there's recoil room while engaging 360 degree aerial targets and to facilitate loading. If you want to see recoil pits, then you need to look at field artillery performing high angle shoots. There, the tube sits much lower to the ground, and firing at elevated targets, say from the plain into the mountains, especially with super charge, recoil pits become a matter of necessity. By contrast, the 88's dug in to reduce its vertical profile and provide protection for the gun, crew and ammunition.

While we're on the 88, I forgot to address the heat shimmer issue. Speaking as someone who spent seven years in Arizona, where his city got as hot as 120 degrees, I have considerable experience with it. When looking for a target in it, heat shimmer creates a lot of optical distortion, the most famous of which is the mirage. Even a piece of blacktop blazing in the desert sun, though, will typically only exhibit heat shimmer http://science.howstuffworks.com/mirage.htm a few feet up, with everything above that clearly visible. Under such conditions, when viewing from long distances, you don't see the tires of a vehicle, but you can see everything above the tires just fine. The Germans exploited this by basically hiding the dug-in 88 in the heat shimmer, but the tanks they were shooting at stood out like sore thumbs from the track guards up, which is basically what's exposed at long range anyway, since terrain microrelief masks the running gear. Confirmation of the scheme may be found in various shots of 88s using 1 meter handheld rangefinders (rangetaker's standing) and in the Afrika Korps site pic of a dug-in 88 next to which is a battery commander type scissor telescope. In both cases, the key optics are above the heat shimmer, allowing accurate range to be taken, while the foe will, if he even sees the gun, perceive it as being somewhere other than it really is, greatly hindering counterfire. Recall, too, that the 88 made its fearsome rep when the British tanks were armed with the 2 pdr, which had no HE, and were hopelessly outranged. The tide began to turn when the 75mm armed, HE and AP munitioned Grant arrived, but that's a separate discussion.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

John,

Apparently what I meant to write was not clear, so let me try again. The tube and trunnions are mounted high on the pedestal so that when the gun is firing nearly vertically in the AA mode, there will be room for it to recoil without striking either the ground or legs of the pedestal. This is more or less true of all large caliber high velocity AA guns.

Speaking of atmospheric shimmer, I have personally observed an odd version of it. I live on the northeast corner of the Olympic Peninsula with the waters of the Strait of San Juan de Fuca and the San Juan Islands directly to my north. On very hot still days, there is a layer of air several meters thick immediately above the water that is cooler than the air above it. As you might expect, that causes an inversion layer to form with odd optical properties. As it forms, the islands at first appear to elongate upwards, and then to form an inverted mirror image. Very strange until you figure out what is going on. Did you ever see that in the desert? BTW, the first time I ever drove through Phoenix it was 120°, so I know what you mean about that Arizona heat.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

After some research into the matter at hand, I discovered Mr. Emrys is absolutely correct.

—Bergerbitz

Ah, yeah, you're absolutely right.

—fytinghellfish

...Michael's assessment is quite right.

—Andreas

Okay, I concede the point.

Are we going to see a revised signature? : )

[Michael Emrys]

Are we going to see a revised signature? : )

Not the kind you're hoping for. Let's put it this way: one robin does not a spring make.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Roger your last in the first paragraph. As for the unusual optical effect you described, I've never seen that one, though I have heard of it. Have seen numerous examples of the ""body of water that isn't" during my time in Arizona, all of which was in the Phoenix area, mostly in Glendale.

Regards,

John Kettler